R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Urban Food Consumption in Metro Manila

Interdisciplinary Approaches Towards Apprehending Practices,
Patterns, and Impacts
Laura Burger Chakraborty, Marlyne Sahakian, Uma Rani, Megha Shenoy* ,
and Suren Erkman

Keywords:
Summary
consumption
environmental impacts Food consumption is a local activity related to environmental impacts at different scales. Yet,
food the link between eating food as a social and cultural practice and the global implications of
food waste food consumption has not been sufficiently explored. We adopt a multidisciplinary approach
industrial ecology to relate social practices with the biophysical flows of food products at the household level.
Manila
Focusing on middle-class households in Metro Manila, the Philippines, we conduct qualitative
interviews to highlight preferences, habits, and perceptions about food consumption. In
parallel, we collect quantitative information on food purchased. We relate our results to
national trends by analyzing the recent evolution of national food expenditures. Finally, we
review environmental impacts related to main food categories. Our research points to
the significance of socioeconomic factors on food consumption, notably the presence of
domestic help or the professional situation of household members. One main finding is the
identification of eating out as an important and growing trend in Asian cities, which causes
a shift of resource consumption and related environmental impacts from the household to
the service sector.

Introduction Food consumption trends worldwide have significantly

changed in the last decades. The consumption of animal prod-
What we eat is part of complex systems, involving food
ucts has tripled in developing countries since 1963 (Kearney
production, processing, transport and storage, as well as prepa-
2010), and the rise in consumption of processed and ultrapro-
ration, consumption, and food waste disposal. Eating food is a
cessed products has been noted in several countries, not least
local activity, but relates to both local and global food chains,
in relation to health concerns (Kearney 2010; Monteiro et al.
involving resource inputs at different stages and outputs with
2010a; FAO 2004). These trends are all the more relevant in
impacts at different scales, from local pollutants to greenhouse
the context of developing countries where shifts in diet among
gases (GHGs) (EEA 2012). In Europe, food is one of the most
the middle classes entail massive changes in land and energy
relevant areas in household consumption, contributing to 20%
requirements for food provisioning, with related environmental
to 30% of different environmental impact categories (Tukker
impacts (Duchin 2005; Myers and Kent 2004). Understanding
et al. 2006). Households can play a role in rendering food
the consumption patterns of middle-class consumption today
consumption more efficient, yet limited research exists relat-
could be a powerful predictor of future trends. Middle classes
ing everyday consumption practices, to biophysical patterns of
in emerging economies are generally perceived as “resource
consumption and related impacts.

∗ Editor’s note: Megha Shenoy is currently employed as a contract editor with the Journal of Industrial Ecology. The review of this article was carried out
by people who had no association with her in her role at the JIE.
Address correspondence to: Marlyne Sahakian, University of Lausanne, Faculty of Geosciences and Environment, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. Email: marlyne.
sahakian@unil.ch

© 2016 by Yale University

DOI: 10.1111/jiec.12402 Editor managing review: Shigemi Kagawa

Volume 20, Number 3

www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jie Journal of Industrial Ecology 559

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
predators,” with empirical evidence lacking to substantiate this
claim (Lange and Meier 2009).
Although there is no single definition for what constitutes
the middle class, Asia is seen as the epicentre for the “new con-
sumer” phenomenon (Myers and Kent 2004). For this article, we
consider food consumption as a social practice that is embedded
in culturally grounded social systems. To understand how and in
what way people consume, we consider food as part of everyday
life and related activities, drawing from social practice theo-
ries. To understand how much of what people consume, we draw
from industrial ecology (IE) approaches that consider food con-
sumption as a biophysical activity with related environmental
impacts. Combining these two approaches can be problematic,
as we will discuss in this article, yet represents a relevant and
novel interdisciplinary approach to consumption studies.
National consumer expenditure surveys and income and
expenditure surveys provide some insights into patterns of
consumption, yet such data often fail to reflect income group
diversity at the city level. Micro-level research at the level of
households can provide a finer reading of consumption, yet
gathering such data can be resource intensive and may not
result in representative findings. Our approach in this article
is to consider three scales of analysis in relation to the food
consumption patterns and practices of the middle class in Metro
Manila, the Philippines, a growing megacity in Southeast
Asia. At the household level, we used memory recall methods
and in-depth qualitative interviews among 30 households,
in order to understand how food consumption practices and
patterns inter-relate. We then consider national statistics for
the Philippines, to further explore trends in food consumption
patterns. Finally, we discuss our findings with respect to life
cycle environmental impacts (LCEIs) that are relevant at the
global scale. Our goal is to bring together these different levels
of analysis and introduce an interdisciplinary approach to
understanding urban food consumption practices, patterns, and
impacts, from the household to the national and global level.
Conceptual framework
Two complementary frameworks for studying consumption
are brought together: consumption patterns as a biophysical
activity and consumption as part of daily life and associated
practices. As a biophysical activity, consumption involves ma-
terial and energetic provisioning from resources that draw from,
and depend on, ecosystem services and natural processes—thus
submitting this form of economic activity to the constraints
of the biosphere (Georgescu-Roegen 1966, 1971, 2006). For
Ayres and Simonis (1994), assessing the industrial metabolism
of a biophysical activity means evaluating the quality and
quantity of energy and matter stocks and flows in a given
system, and understanding how that system could be designed
to perform with less environmental impacts throughout the
entire process—from the extraction of natural resources,
through production, consumption, and final disposal.
Although more attention had been placed on production
systems in the past, the IE community has taken up the
560 Journal of Industrial Ecology
question of consumption in recent years (Hertwich 2005;
Tukker et al. 2010). The activities of households can be assessed
though material flow analysis and input-output accounting,
for example, with the impacts of products and services assessed
with life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology (Jungbluth et al.
2011; Jungbluth 2000; Jungbluth et al. 2000; Moll et al. 2005;
Mogensen et al. 2009). However, how much materials and
energy a household consumes in preparing and eating a meal
reveals little about why and in what way those consumption
patterns persist or change. For this, interdisciplinary research
is necessary that combines a biophysical understanding of
consumption, with the view of consumption as tied up with
everyday social life in specific contexts.
Wilk (2002) proposes three main research strands for under-
standing consumption as part of everyday life: consumption as
social, cultural, or driven by individual choice approaches. By
far, the most dominant approach in research and policy mak-
ing has been the view of consumption as being motivated by
individual decision-making processes. Recently, there has been
a shift of attention from social psychology and behavioral psy-
chology approaches (Stern et al. 1997; Stern 1992) to a social
practice theory approach to consumption, which takes the ana-
lytical focus away from atomized individuals and technologies,
to a vision of consumption as part of everyday collective routines
and habits. The contours of this theoretical framework are var-
ied, with researchers proposing differing perspectives on what
constitutes a practice (Reckwitz 2002; Røpke 2009; Shove 2003;
Spaargaren 2011; Warde 2005). In one definition, practices are
seen as being made up of competences, images, and equipment
(Shove and Pantzar 2005). Food consumption as a practice has
been the object of much research (e.g., Warde 2013, 2014;
Sahakian and Wilhite 2014; Plessz et al. 2014; Bourdieu 1979).
Combining social theories with IE approaches is relatively
recent in the literature, with some work drawing from social
practice theory to further understand energy consumption
patterns (Sahakian 2014; Gram-Hanssen 2009). On food
consumption specifically, Sonesson and colleagues (2005)
reveal the complex interactions between mobility practices,
shopping frequency, and food wastage; and Green and Foster
(2005) investigate the effect of social structures in influ-
encing innovations in the UK frozen pea sector. In terms
of arguments for more links between social theories and
IE, several researchers (Schiller 2009; Lifset 2008; Hoffman
2003) call for considering different disciplinary approaches in
assessing biophysical processes, including the policy dimension,
social systems analysis, and ecological economics. Combining
social practices theory with approaches from IE is one of the
innovative aspects of this article.
Methodology and Research Site
Methodology
Households (HHs) are typically defined as groups of people
living together and taking food from a common kitchen (NSSO
2013). The system’s boundaries for the quantitative assessment
are set as the physical space delimited by the outer walls of

the household. Between July and November 2013, in-depth
interviews were conducted among 30 households in Metro
Manila. Our aim was not to gain a homogenous sample within
the middle class, but rather select households representing
the diversity and heterogeneity of a wide income group, using
theoretical sampling techniques (Strauss and Corbin 1998)
and considering income range, housing composition, and
educational levels, among other factors. Whereas the small
sample size is not intended to be representative, many of our
research results match national trends, such as the increase in
expenditures for eating out among the middle class. Our sample
did allow us to compare and contrast different household
consumption patterns, which enabled us to fully exploit the
dialectic between qualitative and quantitative approaches.
In this process, our interest was in uncovering the outliers,
in terms of consumption patterns, in order to demonstrate
that unusual quantitative research findings could be explained
through complementary, qualitative research.
Within our sample, the household size varies from one
to nine members, with households belonging to the lower
(43%), average (23%), and upper (30%) middle-class income
brackets.1 Exposure to foreign countries is high among our
sample: 57% of the households report that at least one member
lived abroad in the past. This is not surprising, given that the
Philippine government actively encourages circular migration
as part of their Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW) program, with
OFW remittances contributing close to 10% of gross domestic
product (GDP) in 2013 (World Bank 2014). There is a predom-
inance of the 20- to 40-year age category among the respondents
(77%), whereas 15% of the respondents are 50+ years old. In
terms of gender, 60% of the respondents are women.
During the household visits, in-depth semistructured
interviews engaged household members in a discussion around
household food consumption practices and how they may have
changed over time. Respondents also answered survey questions
designed to capture food consumption patterns, using as a proxy
the food purchased that entered the household, described in
terms of quantity and frequency. We do not consider what is
ingested by household members, given away, or used for another
purpose, once it enters the household. Food consumption
outside of the home is also not included in the quantitative
assessment, rather discussed in qualitative interviews. For
gathering quantitative information, we used memory recall,
a methodology that is common in expenditure surveys (NSS
2012; Smith and Subandoro 2007). Unlike food diaries, which
capture food intake amounts, this method captures food and
beverage mass as they are purchased, including the nonedible
fractions (peels, bones, and so on) and components that may
eventually be wasted. The general format for questions related
to food consumption patterns is: “How many [units, e.g. kg]
of [product, e.g. rice] is purchased in a week?” We distinguish
between processed and nonprocessed foods. Products cate-
gorized as processed correspond to the category ultraprocessed
food defined by Monteiro and colleagues (2010b), including
ready-made breads, biscuits, sweets, cheese, and canned prod-
ucts. Quantities are computed in kilograms (kg; for beverages,
Burger Chakraborty et al., Urban Food Consumption in Metro Manila
R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
volumes are converted assuming an average density of 1 kg per
liter [L]), brought to weekly values and expressed relative to the
number of household members. When respondents were unsure
about size and weight, the research team compared estimates to
a chart designed to list the features of common food products
available in Metro Manila. As is always the case with memory
recall methods, questions on the validity of responses remain
and will be addressed in our conclusion. We assumed that all
respondents understood the questions similarly. Household
waste quantities and types are not considered in this article
and are the subject of further research (Leray et al. 2015).
In order to relate our micro-level household data to national
trends, we consider food consumption expenditures among the
middle classes by drawing from the Family Income and Ex-
penditure Survey (FIES), which collects detailed income and
expenditure data every 3 years in the Philippines based on mem-
ory recall methods. We use food expenditure data pertaining to
the years 2003 and 2009, which are adjusted for inflation for this
analysis. Conducted biannually, the survey includes a first inter-
view in July to gather data for the first half of the year, followed
by a second interview in January, to account for the last half of
the year. The concept of “average week” consumption is used for
all food items. Though the FIES sample is designed to be repre-
sentative of diverse consumption patterns and economic classes,
the limits of this survey relate to memory recall methods and
timing, given that the survey is not spread across the year, but
executed at two periods. Despite these limitations, the data do
allow us to show some broad, national consumption trends. In
order to assess the environmental significance of certain micro
and macro trends in food consumption, we draw from a literature
review of LCA studies worldwide. We stop short of undertaking
a complete LCA for food products in Metro Manila because of
the lack of available background life cycle inventory data.
Research Site: Metro Manila
An archipelago in Southeast Asia, the Philippines has a
population of 97.71 million and land area of 300,000 square
kilometers. The middle class comprised around 20.1% of the
overall population in 2003 and have marginally increased to
21% in 2009. Average middle-class annual earnings reached
US$8,350 in 2003 and increased to US$9,400 in 2009 in real
terms. However, the average expenditure on food as a propor-
tion to total income has remained more or less constant at 27%
over the past decade in real terms. Labor force participation rates
(LFPRs) for females are around 49.8% and for males 79.8%. The
high female LFPRs in Philippines is exceptional in the context
of a developing country, with rates comparable to those of more
advanced economies. Working abroad is a common livelihood
strategy, with an estimated 2.22 million overseas Filipino
workers in 2013, of which 48.3% were females (PSA 2013).
The Philippines is one of the world’s largest livestock
producers (World Bank 2012). Local production is dominated
in volume by pork and chicken; in 2013, approximately 20% of
both beef and water-buffalo meat was imported, up from 8.5%
and zero, respectively, in 1990 (CountryStat Philippines 2015).
561
 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
The country has converted 40.6% of its land area into agri-
cultural land (World Bank 2011a), contributing to significant
environmental impacts related to the use of chemical fertilizers
and GHG emissions. Rice is a major cereal crop produced in the
Philippines, with 4.7 million hectares (ha) of its land being used
for its cultivation; cereals, oil crops, coconuts, maize, sugar cane,
fruits such as pineapples, bananas, and mangoes, and aquacul-
ture make up the remaining main cultivation (FAO 2013a).
The Philippines was the world’s largest importer of rice in 2010
(Reuters 2011) whereas its own production accounts for 2.3%
of global rice production (FAO 2013b). In comparison, China
and India are the biggest rice producers, achieving around 28%
and 21%, respectively, of global rice production (FAO 2013b).
The focus of this article is on the middle classes in Metro
Manila, the national capital region of the Philippines. With an
estimated population of 11.7 million, Metro Manila is a site of
“new consumer” consumption, with shopping centers becoming
important leisure destinations for food purchasing and for eating
out. What and how people eat in Metro Manila is constantly
evolving, not least in relation to historical trajectories involv-
ing colonial and postcolonial influences, but also in relation to
the ongoing effects of globalization and neoliberalism.
Empirical Analysis: Food Consumption
Patterns and Practices
Results of the Micro-Level Analysis: Studying
Household Food Consumption
There is no standard food consumption pattern among the
middle-class households that participated in our research: how
much of what food people purchase and why depends on a num-
ber of factors, not least related to household composition, the
presence of domestic help, and working patterns. The weekly,
per capita household purchase of food in weight is presented in
figure 1. An outlier stands out (HH30) and is described in Box 1.
BOX 1: Household Number 30
This young man lives with his working mother and attends
a local university. Both eat their breakfast at home and
usually eat out for lunch during the week, with the son
mostly frequenting fast food shops, for the price, taste, and
convenience. On weekends, his mother purchases and cooks
“huge amounts of food,” as he puts it. She tends to buy
produce in bulk, then prepare food for the extended family
that visits their home, but also for other families living in their
compound. She likes to prepare sufficient food so as to have
leftovers available throughout the week. Though there are
only two members in their household, cooking for neighbors
and extended family may explain the high amount of food
purchased per week, 20 kg per person. Whether she gives
food away for charity or monetary return remains unclear.
She also claims to buy meat in bulk, when on sale in the
supermarkets, to then store in the freezer—which could also
explain the high amount of meat purchased in a given week.
562 Journal of Industrial Ecology
Eating Out and Ordering In
Several respondents eat at least one meal outside of the home
on a daily basis, primarily in the context of office work. Meals
are eaten mostly in workplace canteens, with respondents citing
convenience and cost as the main motivator behind this prac-
tice. Families tend to eat more meals at home, as opposed to
single-member households who tend to eat out—as in the exam-
ple of HH02 (Box 2). In some cases, meals are prepared at home,
then carried to the workplace in what is known as baon, in Taga-
log, or a packed lunch. One family describes eating breakfast in
their workplace canteen in the mornings before bringing their
young son to preschool; they will pack a baon directly from the
canteen, for their son, including rice and a banana, for example.
Several respondents also describe eating outside in restaurants
on weekends, enjoying a variety of different types of foods avail-
able in Metro Manila, such as Italian, Japanese, Chinese, or
Thai food. Only one respondent among the 30 interviewed re-
ported eating outside less than once per week: She often eats at
her mother’s home, but does not associate this with “eating out.”
BOX 2: Household Number 2 and Household Number 9
Household Number 2
This 22-year-old working woman lives with flatmates. She
eats most of her meals at the office during the week and
explained: “I usually skip my lunch, so I’ll eat breakfast
and heavy snacks,” such as sandwiches and fruits. On the
weekends, the flatmates enjoy eating out and consuming
snacks at home, when watching TV series. These snacks
include chips and dips, fried seaweed, or ice cream. At home
for dinner, the young woman might sometimes cook rice and
meat (primarily chicken and pork, and sometimes fish), but
mostly eats out. Processed meats, such as hot dogs, are also
cooked at home, using a variety of sauces, such as tomato
sauce, chilli sauce, oyster sauce, or gravy mix. When asked
what has changed the most since her childhood, she says she
is eating more meals outside of the home. Their flat is located
next to several fast food restaurants, which results in her also
eating more fast food since moving to this area.
Household Number 9
This 50-year-old unmarried woman lives in a boarding house
near the university campus, where she works. On weekdays,
she eats most of her meals at the school cafeterias. Over her
lifetime, she has lived between Metro Manila and her birth-
place of Davao, including a few months in Sydney, for her
studies then again to apply for permanent residency, as well as
a few months in Chicago, where she has family. In the morn-
ing and on weekdays, she will have orange juice and yogurt at
home, which is not a common breakfast in the Philippines.
She learned this when living in Australia and feels that it con-
tributes to a healthy diet. Every 2 weeks, she goes to Cavite
(southwest of Manila) to visit family and brings food back,
including different prepared dishes. When she visits Davao,
she will also bring back bisayang manok, a type of chicken that
is not available in northern Philippines. When asked what
she has at home, she replies “all we have there are biscuits.”
 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Figure 1 Household food purchases, among the Metro Manila sample. Other processed products include biscuits, sauces, and so on, and
excludes processed food included in other categories. These figures exclude the ready-made food ordered at home and food consumed
outside the household. As an indication, the reported frequency of food order in the household is also shown.

Ordering prepared food at home was a common practice
in our sample, though because of practical constraints, the
quantity of food ordered or received at home could not be
assessed. Approximately 40% of the households report ordering
food from outside. Most of them order relatively rarely (once a
week or less). However, a respondent in a household composed
of three flatmates below 35 years old reports ordering food
once a day on the weekdays, and two to three times during the
weekend, mostly at fast food restaurants. Several households
reported ordering food eight times per week. For two students
in their twenties who live together in a shared flat, ordering
is a matter of convenience, but also more cost-effective. They
often order in quantities that allow them to have leftovers for
the next day. Though they recognize that cooking at home
might be better for their health, they turn to prepared food for
convenience because they both work and have no domestic
help. Household members tend to eat outside or order food less
frequently when domestic helpers are present. For instance,
one respondent mentioned that she stopped ordering food from
outside once she employed a domestic helper.
Meat and Dairy Products
No household reports a vegetarian diet. Some households
consume a wide range of meat categories, especially chicken,
pork, and beef/buffalo. Others display clear preferences for
certain types of meat (figure 2). For instance, several households
do not consume pork; in contrast, pork makes up for around
70% of the meat consumption in HH17. One reason for this is
that the woman cooking for this household tends to shop at a
supermarket, which is conveniently located on her way home
from work and where ground pork is readily available. Though
she would like to cook more fish, she finds that cooking ground
pork is easier than preparing fish, particularly because she
has a young child who likes pork dishes. When she eats out,
however, she tends to order fish dishes. Religion is not an
explanation for some households not consuming pork, given
that most of the households are Christian. These preferences
for different meats seem to relate to personal taste, developed
over the course of a lifetime. Only HH18 reports purchasing
mutton/lamb, because this type of meat is typically imported
into the Philippines and can be costly, compared to pork.
In HH09, the respondent indicated that though she eats
meat, none is purchased at home. If we were to consider only
the survey on food purchases, we would mistakenly conclude
that this person has a vegetarian diet. In fact, most of her meals
occur outside the home, as described in Box 2. For her, living
abroad has changed her consumption patterns, showing the
influence of mobility on local consumption. Travel within the
Philippines is also a way to bring foods from other localities
back to her home in Metro Manila.
Sixty percent of the households purchase canned meat and
processed meat. For instance, in HH12, 70% of meat purchases
consist of canned meat. The respondent works at a bank and
lives alone, and finds that storing canned goods is a convenient
way to prepare quick meals at home. As a former U.S. colony,
the Philippines have made canned goods available since the
late nineteenth century. Over several generations, canned
meats have become staples in Filipino pantries, including the
ever-popular Spam. Convenience in preparing is one reason
for purchasing such goods, but also convenience in storage,
because these items can have longer shelf lives than fresh
produce: Before the mass production of refrigeration, canned

Burger Chakraborty et al., Urban Food Consumption in Metro Manila 563

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
Figure 2 Household meat purchases, among the Metro Manila sample. Excluding ready-made food ordered at home and food consumed
outside the household.
goods was an excellent way to store foods in a tropical climate
and have food ready in emergency situations, such as flooding.
Dairy products are purchased in smaller quantities than
meat products (figure 1). Consumption of powdered milk is
frequently reported, sometimes in larger quantities than fresh
milk. This is the case in HH04, where the mother feels that
certain powdered milk brands offer vitamin supplements,
which she perceives as being healthier for her small children.
Processed Foods and Imported Products
Almost all households report consuming processed food.
The fraction of processed food related to the weekly food
purchases ranges from 6% to 52% (figure 3). Bread, processed
meat, and fish (including canned meat) and ice cream are
reported most frequently. Instant noodles are also popular and
can be purchased in stores across the country, related again to
convenience in storage and preparation.
Whereas 77% of respondents claimed that they purchase
imported foods, it was not possible to quantify these products.
Related to this was the lack of knowledge about the origin of
food items: When asked where milk comes from, for example,
one respondent answered “the supermarket” and was unable
to suggest as to whether the milk was imported or drawn from
cows in the Philippines.
Beverages
Beverages quantities consumed by households vary greatly
(figure 4). Converted to mass, beverage purchases exceed food
purchases in most of the households. The main part consists of
water, except HH17, where cold drinks make up for a similar
amount as water (to avoid double counting, milk is not included
as beverage, but as dairy product). Though tap water in Metro
Manila is theoretically drinkable, at least in some areas, 80% of
the households report purchasing water in large bottles (19 L),
whereas 20% filter or treat tap water directly at home. Even in
the latter case, two households mention purchasing water bot-
564 Journal of Industrial Ecology
tles for their young children for perceptions around health and
safety. Tap water is generally not perceived to be healthy and
water pipes are not considered reliable. Filtered water is readily
available across town, delivered mostly by men on bicycles
working for small-to-medium enterprises. Households purchase
water distributors, which range from manual machines, to
electrical devices that generate hot and cold water. Once in
possession of such an appliance, people tend to be locked into
purchasing large water bottles from their local distributors.
Besides drinking, some households use drinkable water for
cooking, cleaning, and washing food, again tied to perceptions
around health and safety. The weekly per capita water con-
sumption varies considerably between households, and in all
cases the quantity of water consumed is low: 7.2 kg per week
per capita, on average, which hardly makes 1 L per person
per day, what can be considered a small amount—although
household members may be drinking more outside the home.
Validating Our Findings Over Time: Macro-Level
Analysis on National Trends
The macro-level analysis based on national statistics
shows that between 2003 and 2009 the consumption of
cereals—including rice, a staple food in the Philippines—has
increased (figure 5), in terms of expenditure. This is also true
for dairy products. However, what is surprising to see is that
consumption of fresh fruits, vegetables, meat, fish, and eggs has
actually reduced, even processed meat. This could be explained
by the fact that there has been an increasing tendency either
to consume already prepared food at home or to eat outside,
as well as the already high cost of meat products in relation to
total household expenditures.
The consumption of beverages has remained fairly constant
over time, but expenditure on carbonated drinks has actually
declined from 2,465 Philippine peso (PhP) in 2003 to PhP1,656
in 2009 (not shown in the figure). Similarly, consumption of
 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Figure 3 Processed and nonprocessed food consumption in the weekly household food purchase.

Figure 4 Beverage consumption in the households. This excludes beverages consumed outside the household.

alcoholic beverages has declined marginally at home. Because
households consume more food outside the home, it is possible
that the consumption of carbonated drinks and alcoholic
beverages outside have also increased, which is captured in the
data but difficult to disaggregate. There are no differences in
consumption patterns across male- or female-headed house-
holds, including the general trend toward eating out. This is
not surprising, considering the high female labor participation
in the Philippines. Across age groups, there was a marginal
decline in the consumption of food ordered in, among those
younger than 30, but an overall increase in all other groups.
One important trend among the urban middle class in the
Philippines is the increasing tendency of households to eat
outside. This phenomenon seems to be more prevalent among
younger (25 to 40 years) and middle-age groups (41 to 55 years),
yet the tendency to eat out increased for all age groups and also
household size (figure 6) and is considered to be a significant
trend at the national level. Average annual food expenditure
on eating food outside increased from 17% in 2003 to 20% in
2009. Most of the expenditure is on eating meals at work, which
increases consistently with the size of the household, implying
that households with more working members spend more
income on food at the workplace. Similarly, there is an increase
in expenditure on meals at school across all household sizes.
This could imply that because of the availability of cheap meals
at school and at work, households prefer to consume out. Based
on observations gathered during fieldwork, the cost of eating
out varies widely: A meal of meat and rice can be purchased
for PhP50 at a roadside carinderia or eatery; for PhP80 in a
workplace cafeteria; for PhP90 at a fast food restaurant; or for
PhP220 at a restaurant that caters to middle-class groups (often
entailing larger food portions). Whereas 200 grams of raw

Burger Chakraborty et al., Urban Food Consumption in Metro Manila 565

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
Figure 5 Food consumption expenditures among the middle classes in Philippines, all households (real values, base year 2006).
Figure 6 Food consumption expenditures outside of home, by household size among the middle class in the Philippines.
pork costs around PhP40, purchasing all ingredients to make a
similar meal at home would most likely represent a higher total
cost for a single person, if we were to include rice, cooking
oils, gas, and electricity for cooking, electricity for cooling
spaces (fan or air-conditioning), in addition to the time needed
to prepare the meal and increasingly small size of cooking
spaces—particularly in new condominiums (Saloma 2015).
Eating in restaurants is more popular among households with
smaller family size (one to four members) than bigger families,
which can be related to the cost of eating out. Eating in becomes
more attractive in terms of volume of food purchased, prepared,
and consumed. In households where the family size is less than
four members, around 50% have single earning members, and
around 40% are dual earners; in the remaining households,
there are more than two earning members. The tendency to
eat out among these households could be owing to lack of time
given that both the male and female members work. With easy
566 Journal of Industrial Ecology
access to fast food between work place and home, it becomes
convenient to eat out rather than cook. The average food
expenditure among households has increased over time, which
can partly be explained by rising prices, but also by changing
consumption practices related to eating out. The inflation rate
in 2003 in Philippines was around 3.1% and increased in the
subsequent years before declining to 3.2% in 2009.
Environmental Impact of Food Consumption Patterns
and Practices
In this section, we consider the environmental impacts of
different food categories that we found to be significant in our
research. Starting with meat consumption, the total LCA envi-
ronmental impacts of meat are higher than vegetarian food by a
factor of 7 to 9 times, depending on different geographical areas,
climate, soil characteristics, crop rotation cycles, and different

sorts of inputs for cultivation (Jungbluth 2000; Jungbluth et al.
2000). Grazing animals have higher environmental impacts
compared to poultry and pork, given that the overall impact of
meat products is primarily governed by agricultural production
of feedstock and the efficiency of conversion of this feedstock
to animal mass (Jungbluth 2000). Since the 1960s and 1970s,
the Philippines adopted measures of the Green Revolution
and increased its consumption of chemical fertilizers and
pesticides in the agricultural production of feedstock and food
(World Bank 2011b). Livestock in the Philippines is also a
large consumer of genetically modified feedstock, including
cottonseeds products and corn (Luces 2014).
In 2010, the Philippines was consuming 149 kg of nitroge-
nous, potash, and phosphate fertilizers per hectare of arable
land, well above the world average consumption of 132.6 kg/ha
(World Bank 2011b). Such heavy use of chemical fertilizers and
pesticides over the years is related to several local and global
adverse environmental impacts, including (1) loss of fish stocks
and weedy green vegetables that traditionally coexisted with
rice paddies, (2) reduction in the diversity of fish and frog species
found in paddy fields (Layosa 2007), and (3) increased GHG
emissions resulting from consumption of chemical fertilizers and
pesticides. Methane released from reared livestock for food pro-
duction is also known to be a significant contributor to global
GHG emissions (FAO 2008; Watson et al. 1992; IPCC 2007).
In addition, excessive use of fertilizers may contribute to the loss
of valuable nutrients such as phosphorus (Childers et al. 2011).
In general, processed food has higher environmental impacts
compared to fresh produce (Kroyer 1995). For food that has to be
industrially processed at the preretail stage, impacts can be ex-
tremely high. For example, the processing of bread contributes
up to one third of its total impacts (Andersson and Ohlsson
1999). In contrast, food packaging is seen to be of minor impor-
tance in terms of LCEIs (Jungbluth et al. 2000). In Switzerland,
food packaging is measured to make up only around 7% of the
weight of sold food (Faist et al. 2001), although this does not ac-
count for food sold in the dining sector. Whereas environmental
impacts of food packaging are significant, its role in keeping food
safe and unspoilt is important: Food packaging can be important
in reducing the total LCEI of a food product (Andersson et al.
1998; Williams et al. 2012), particularly in cases where the envi-
ronmental impact of the food is relatively higher than its pack-
aging, as is the case with perishable foods such as cheese or bread.
In cases where tap water is potable, municipal systems for
water distribution have much lower environmental impacts
compared to single-use bottles (Nessi et al. 2012; Dettore
2009). In the United States, tap water consumes 11 to 31 times
less energy than single-use bottles and outperform bottles with
respect to life cycle energy, solid waste, GHG emission, and
water use (Dettore 2009). Studies are lacking on the impact
of home filtered water compared to water delivered from
community filtering stations, as is the case in Metro Manila.
As a result of their considerable consumption of meat, dairy,
and packaged food, the urban middle classes in Metro Manila are
predicted to have much higher LCEIs compared to other popu-
lations who consume less of these products. The LCA damage
Burger Chakraborty et al., Urban Food Consumption in Metro Manila
R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
categories potentially relevant with respect to the consumption
patterns observed are climate change resulting from GHGs,
ecosystem quality resulting from aquatic ecotoxicity, eutroph-
ication, terrestrial acidification/nitrification primarily resulting
from the high use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers to grow
food for animals and land used for grazing and animal rearing,
and resource depletion resulting from nonrenewable energy use.
Conclusion
The middle class in Metro Manila represents a diverse group
of people whose consumption patterns and practices can relate
to many factors. We found that eating out has become an
important practice, a finding that was substantiated through the
analysis of national surveys. This trend merits further research,
given that it causes a shift of resource consumption, such as
food, electricity, and gas, from households to the service sector.
Food and packaging waste (including one-time-use containers,
cutlery, and napkins) could also increase when eating out. In
addition to entertainment and leisure, convenience and cost-
effectiveness were identified as key factors for both eating out
and ordering in, whereas the presence of domestic helpers tends
to counteract this trend. Quantitative household consumption
surveys might overlook this shift and underestimate the actual
consumption of households. The mismeasurement of eating
out in consumption surveys of developing countries has been
highlighted in the literature; in India, missing data on eating
out are identified as one reason for inconsistencies in calorie
consumption analyses (Smith 2013). The increasingly global
discourse around food waste presents households as playing
an important role in reducing such waste; yet food waste in
the service industry could be prioritized for further research
and policy action. Resource efficiency measures to reduce food
waste or food-related waste in urban centers, as well as to close
nutrient cycles, may be more effectively achieved within the
dining industry, rather than at the level of individual homes.
As we have shown, the practice of food consumption
is very much a “local” affair, embedded in specific cultural
contexts and related to historical trajectories and institutional
settings. Yet, food consumption patterns at the local level
have implications in terms of regional and global impacts.
Our impact assessment review suggests that middle-class food
consumption practices in Metro Manila probably exert a high
pressure on the environment, particularly in relation to meat
and dairy products, processed and imported food, and beverages,
specifically bottled water. This effect might be exacerbated with
time. For instance, per capita meat consumption is growing at a
faster rate in Asia than in other regions of the world, across all
meat types (OECD-FAO 2013). A detailed impact assessment
based on local data sets is recommended to substantiate this
hypothesis, in order to deliver relevant policy recommenda-
tions: for example, comparing impacts of bottled water through
city-wide or household-level filtering technologies.
We observed a recurrent presence of processed products
among the surveyed households, driven mainly by convenience
567
 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
and cost-effectiveness. Whereas most households recognize
processed foods as being unhealthy, some people associate
processed products, such as powdered milk and bottled water,
with higher levels of hygiene and safety. The nutritional
quality and environmental implications of processed food, as
well as perceptions around these products, would merit further
exploration. Consumption of processed food is associated with
the “nutrition transition” of developing countries, and poten-
tial health-related implications are obesity, diabetes, and other
nutrition-related chronic diseases (Monteiro et al. 2010a).
The value of combining both qualitative and quantitative
readings of household food consumption was clearly demon-
strated in this research, given that food quantities could not
be properly understood without qualitative discussions with
household members. Contextualizing quantitative findings so-
cially and culturally provided new insights on the observed
patterns. In turn, quantitative findings raised interesting figures
that could be further investigated through in-depth interviews.
One of the limits of our research was in the use of memory recall
methods, both in our empirical research at the household level,
and in our analysis of national surveys. Common errors arising
from this methodology are associated with memory, motivation,
knowledge, and communication (Bradburn et al. 2004). The
difficulty of estimating quantities, such as water consumption,
is a potential source of under- or overestimation in our data.
The issue of incomplete knowledge about household purchases
should also be raised: We were more confident with our results
when interviewing the head of a family responsible for food
purchases, rather than a young individual sharing a living space
with flat mates and managing their expenditures independently.
Memory recall could be complemented by other methods, in-
cluding measuring flows and weighing foods among households.
Literature on new consumer food consumption trends seems
to focus on the high environmental impact of current and
projected consumption patterns (Myers and Kent 2004). What
we have emphasized in this study is that food consumption is
not solely a biophysical flow, but also relates to the flow of
perceptions and images as people and ideas travel across the
globe. Food consumption in Metro Manila has always been
influenced by colonial trade routes, but these flows are now
accelerating as a result of increased mobility and globalization.
These many factors may lead to a shift in practices and must
be addressed carefully in order to successfully promote more
sustainable forms of food consumption.
Acknowledgments
This research is drawn from a larger interdisciplinary study
titled “(Un)sustainable food consumption dynamics among
the middle-classes in Bangalore and Metro Manila.” It was
made possible thanks to a grant by the Swiss Network for
International Studies (Switzerland) and complementary funds
from the Institute of Philippine Culture of Ateneo de Manila
University. The authors thank project cocoordinator Shalini
Randeria and fellow researchers, including Czarina Saloma,
568 Journal of Industrial Ecology
Lorraine Mangaser, Abigail Favis, and Christine Camata. The
authors also extend their thanks to all household members who
participated in our study. Please note that the views expressed
in this article are those of individuals and not those of the
organizations that they represent.
Note
1. These income brackets, based on the 2009 National Statistics
Office definition of the middle class, include: lower middle-class:
PhP280,000–PhP980,000; average middle class: PhP981,000–
PhP1,700,000; upper middle class: PhP1,700,000–PhP2,300,000).
One household did not report their income category. In May 2013,
PHP100 equaled approximately US$2.
References
Andersson, K. and T. Ohlsson. 1999. Life cycle assessment of bread
produced on different scales. The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 4(1): 25–40.
Andersson, K., T. Ohlsson, and P. Olsson. 1998. Screening life cycle
assessment (LCA) of tomato ketchup: A case study. Journal of
Cleaner Production 6(3–4): 277–288.
Ayres, R. and U. E. Simonis. 1994. Industrial metabolism: Restructur-
ing for sustainable development. Tokyo: United Nations University
Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1979. La distinction critique sociale du jugement [Distinction:
A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste]. Paris: Les Editions
de Minuit.
Bradburn, N. M., S. Sudman, and B. Wansink. 2004. Asking questions:
The definitive guide to questionnaire design—Market research, political
polls, social and health questionnaires, revised edition. San Francisco,
CA, USA: Jossey Bass.
Childers, D. L., J. Corman, M. Edwars, and J. J. Elser. 2011. Sustain-
ability challenges of phosphorus and food: Solutions from closing
the human phosphorus cycle. BioScience 61(2): 117–124.
CountryStat Philippines. 2015. Production and food consumption
database. http://countrystat.bas.gov.ph. Accessed May 2015.
Dettore, C. G. 2009. Comparative life-cycle assessment of bottled vs. tap
water systems. Report no. CSS09-11. Ann Arbor, MI, USA: Cen-
ter for Sustainable Systems, School of Natural Resources and
Environment, University of Michigan
Duchin, F. 2005. Sustainable consumption of food: A framework for
analyzing scenarios about changes in diets. Journal of Industrial
Ecology 9(1–2): 99–114.
EEA (European Environment Agency). 2012. Consumption and the
environment—2012 update. In The European environment—State
and outlook 2010. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency
(EEA).
Faist, M., S. Kytzia, and P. Baccini. 2001. The impact of household food
consumption on resource and energy management. International
Journal of Environment and Pollution 15(2): 183–199.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2004. Globalization of food
systems in developing countries: Impact on food security and nu-
trition. Food and nutrition paper 83. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2008. Food security statis-
tics. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. www.fao.org/
economic/ess/food-security-statistics/en/. Accessed 4 April 2014.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2013a. Country wise crop
production statistics. http://faostat3.fao.org/download/Q/QC/E.
Accessed 7 December 2015.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2013b. FAO statistical
yearbook 2013: World food and agriculture. Rome: Food and Agri-
culture Organization. http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3107e/
i3107e00.htm. Accessed 31 May 2015.
Georgescu-Roegen, N. 1966. Analytical economics: Issues and problems.
Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.
Georgescu-Roegen, N. 1971. The entropy law and the economic process.
Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.
Georgescu-Roegen, N. 2006. La Décroissance: Entropie, Ecologie,
Economie [Degrowth: entropy, ecology and economy] (1979).
Paris: Sang de la Terre, Broché.
Gram-Hanssen, K. 2009. Standby consumption in households analyzed
with a practice theory approach. Journal of Industrial Ecology 14(1):
150–156.
Green, K. and C. Foster. 2005. Give peas a chance: Transformations
in food consumption and production systems. Technological Fore-
casting & Social Change 72(6): 663–679.
Hertwich, E. G. 2005. Editorial: Consumption and industrial ecology.
Journal of Industrial Ecology 9(1–2): 1–6.
Hoffman, A. J. 2003. Linking social systems analysis to the in-
dustrial ecology framework. Organization & Environment 16(1):
66–86.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (ed.). 2007. Cli-
mate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Work-
ing Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Jungbluth, N. 2000. Environmental consequences of food consump-
tion: A modular life cycle assessment to evaluate product char-
acteristics. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 5(3):
143–144.
Jungbluth, N., O. Tietje, and R. Scholz. 2000. Food purchases: Impacts
from the consumers’ point of view investigated with a modular
LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 5(3): 134–
142.
Jungbluth N., C. Nathani, M. Stucki, and M. Leuenberger. 2011. En-
vironmental impacts of swiss consumption and production. A
combination of input-output analysis with life cycle assessment.
Environmental studies no. 1111: 171 pp. Bern, Switzerland: Swiss
Federal Office for the Environment.
Kearney, J. 2010. Food consumption trends and drivers. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B 365(1554): 2793–2807.
Kroyer, G. T. 1995. Impact of food processing on the environment—an
overview. LWT-Food Science and Technology 28 (6): 547–552.
Lange, H. and L. Meier (eds.). 2009. The new middle classes—Globalizing
lifestyles, consumerism, and environmental concern. Dordrecht, the
Netherlands: Springer.
Layosa, P. M. 2007. Impact of IRRI on Philippine’s rice agriculture.
In: The great rice robbery: A handbook on the impact of IRRI in Asia
Penang, edited by V. M. Lopez, et al. Malaysia: Pesticide Action
Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP).
Leray, L., M. Sahakian, and S. Erkman. 2015. What can social practice
theory bring to household metabolism studies? An argument for
social reflexivity in MFAs. Taking stock of industrial ecology.
University of Surrey, Guildford, UK, ISIE proceedings.
Lifset, R. 2008. Editorial: The quantitative and the qualita-
tive in industrial ecology. Journal of Industrial Ecology 12(2):
133–135.
Burger Chakraborty et al., Urban Food Consumption in Metro Manila
R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
Luces, K. 2014. Genetically-modified crops, fastest adopted technol-
ogy in recent history: Study. GMA News Online http://www.
gmanetwork.com/news/story/351702/scitech/science/genetically-
modified-crops-fastest-adopted-technology-in-recent-history-
study#sthash.2Lh5EjLe.dpuf. Accessed 15 December 2015.
Mogensen, L., J. E. Hermansen, N. Halberg, R. Dalgaard, J. C. Vis, and
B. G. Smith. 2009. Life cycle assessment across the food supply
chain. In Sustainability in the food industry, edited by C. Baldwin.
Ames, IA, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Moll, H. C., K. J. Noorman, R. Kok, R. Engström, H. Throne-Holst,
and C. Clark. 2005. Pursuing more sustainable consumption by
analyzing household metabolism in European countries and cities.
Journal of Industrial Ecology 9(1–2): 259–275.
Monteiro, C. A, R. B. Levy, R. M. Claro, I. R. Ribeiro de Castro, and G.
Cannon. 2010a. Increasing consumption of ultra-processed foods
and likely impact on human health: Evidence from Brazil. Public
Health Nutrition 14(1): 5–13.
Monteiro, C. A, R. B. Levy, R. M. Claro, I. R. Ribeiro de Castro, and
G. Cannon. 2010b. A new classification of foods based on the
extent and purpose of their processing. Cad Saude Publica 26(11):
2039–2049.
Myers, N. and J. Kent. 2004. The new consumers: The influence of af-
fluence on the environment. Washington, DC; Covelo, CA, USA;
London: Island.
Nessi, S., L. Rigamonti, and M. Grosso. 2012. LCA of waste prevention
activities: A case study for drinking water in Italy. Journal of
Environmental Management 108: 73–83.
NSS (National Sample Survey). 2012. NSS 66th Round. New Delhi:
National Sample Survey, Ministry of Statistics and Programme
Implementation, Government of India.
NSSO. 2013. Key Indicators of Employment and Unemployment in In-
dia. NSS 68th Round (July 2011 - June 2012). New Delhi: Na-
tional Sample Survey Organization, Ministry of Statistics and
Programme Implementation.
OECD (Organization for Ecomomic Cooperation and Develop-
ment) and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2013.
OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2013–2022. Paris/Rome:
OECD/FAO.
PSA (Philippine Statistics Authority). 2013. 2013 survey of overseas
Filipinos. Quezon City, Philippines.
Plessz, M., S. Sophie Dubuisson-Quellier, S. Gojard, and S. Barrey.
2014. How consumption prescriptions affect food practices: As-
sessing the roles of household resources and life-course events.
Journal of Consumer Culture DOI: 10.1177/1469540514521077.
Reckwitz, A. 2002. Toward a theory of social practices: A development
in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory 5(2):
243–263.
Reuters. 2011. Factbox—Top 10 rice exporting, importing countries.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-rice-exporters-idUKTRE70R
1LY20110128. Accessed 7 December 2015.
Røpke, I. 2009. Theories of practice—New inspiration for ecological
economic studies on consumption. Ecological Economics 68(10):
2490–2497.
Sahakian, M. 2014. Keeping cool in Southeast Asia: Energy use and
urban air-conditioning. New York; London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sahakian, M. and H. Wilhite. 2014. Making practice theory practica-
ble: Towards more sustainable forms of consumption. Journal of
Consumer Culture 14(1): 25–44.
Saloma, C. 2015. Eating in vertical neighbourhoods: Materiality and
practice of food consumption in Bangalore and Metro Manila.
Paper presented at the Lecture Series of the Department of
569
 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
Development Studies, University of Vienna, 27 May 2015, Vi-
enna, Austria.
Schiller, F. 2009. Linking material and energy flow analyses and social
theory. Ecological Economics 68(6): 1676–1686.
Shove, E. 2003. Comfort, cleanliness and convenience: The social organi-
zation of normality. Oxford, UK; New York: Berg.
Shove, E. and M. Pantzar. 2005. Consumers, producers and practices:
Understanding the invention and reinvention of Nordic walking.
Journal of Consumer Culture 5(1): 43–64.
Sonesson, U., F. Anteson, J. Davis, and P.-O. Sjödén. 2005. Home
transport and wastage: Environmentally relevant household ac-
tivities in the life cycle of food. Ambio 34 (4–5): 371–375.
Smith, L. C. and A. Subandoro. 2007. Measuring food security us-
ing household expenditure surveys. Washington, DC: International
Food Policy Research Institute.
Smith, L. C. 2013. The great Indian calorie debate: Explaining rising un-
dernourishment during India’s rapid economic growth. IDS working
paper 430. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies.
Spaargaren, G. 2011. Theories of practices: Agency, technology, and
culture: Exploring the relevance of practice theories for the gov-
ernance of sustainable consumption practices in the new world-
order. Global Environmental Change 21(3): 813–822.
Stern, P., T. Dietz, V. Ruttan, R. Socolow, and J. Sweeney. 1997.
Environmentally significant consumption: Research directions. Wash-
ington, DC: Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global
Change, National Academy Press.
Stern, P. C. 1992. What psychology knows about energy conservation.
American Psychologist 47(10): 1224–1232.
Strauss, A. and J. M. Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: Tech-
niques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Tukker, A., G. Huppes, J. Guinée, R. Heijungs, A. de Koning, L.
van Oers, S. Suh, et al. 2006. Environmental impact of products
(EIPRO): Analysis of the life cycle environmental impacts related to
the final consumption of the EU-25. Technical report EUR 22284
EN. Main report. Seville, Spain: European Commission, Joint Re-
search Centre (DG JRC), Institute for Prospective Technological
Studies.
Tukker, A., M. Cohen, K. Hubacek, and O. Mont. 2010. Editorial: Sus-
tainable consumption and production. Journal of Industrial Ecology
14(1): 1–3.
570 Journal of Industrial Ecology
Warde, A. 2005. Consumption and theories of practice. Journal of
Consumer Culture 5(2): 131–153.
Warde, A. 2013. What sort of practice is eating? In Sustainable practices:
Social theory and climate change (pp. 17–30), edited by E. Shove
and N. Spurling. London: Routledge.
Warde, A. 2014. After taste: Culture, consumption and theories of
practice. Journal of Consumer Culture 14(3): 279–303.
Watson, R. T., L. G. Neirafilho, E. Sanhueza, and A. Janetos. 1992.
Sources and sinks. In The supplementary report of the IPCC scientific
assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wilk, R. 2002. Consumption, human needs, and global environmental
change. Global Environmental Change 12(1): 5–13.
Williams, H., F. Wikström, T. Otterbring, M. Löfgren, and A. Gustafs-
son. 2012. Reasons for household food waste with special atten-
tion to packaging. Journal of Cleaner Production 24: 141–148.
World Bank. 2011a. Agricultural land (% of land area). http://data.
worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.AGRI.ZS/countries/1W-IN-
PH?display=graph. Accessed 12 May 2014.
World Bank. 2011b. Fertilizer consumption (kilograms per hectare
of arable land). http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.CON.
FERT.ZS/countries/1W-IN-PH?display=graph. Accessed 12 May
2014.
World Bank. 2012. Livestock production index (2004–2006 =
100). http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.PRD.LVSK.XD/
countries/1W-IN-PH-US?display=graph. Accessed 12 May 2014.
World Bank. 2014. Personal remittances, received (% of GDP). World
Development Indicators. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/
BX.TRF.PWKR.DT.GD.ZS. Accessed 17 December 2014.
About the Authors
Laura Burger Chakraborty is a sustainability consultant
based in Delhi, India. Marlyne Sahakian is a research associate
in the Industrial Ecology Group of the University of Lausanne,
Lausanne, Switzerland. Uma Rani is a senior economist in
the Research Department at the International Labour Office
in Geneva, Switzerland. Megha Shenoy is an independent
industrial ecologist based in Bangalore, India. Suren Erkman
is a professor of industrial ecology at the University of Lausanne.